IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8257 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SMT. VANAJAKSHIDEVI W/O VASANTKUMAR AGE:47 YEARS TEACHER IN GOVERNMENT URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL R/O SOPPINABEDHI MALEBENNUR, HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 530 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. MALLINATH A.S S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA.A AGE:37 YEARS CLAIMS AS DOING BUSINESS R/O BHANUVALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 206 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M.VINAY KEERTHI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2013 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C., HARIHAR IN C.C.NO.182/2006 (PCR NO.32/2006) IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE IA FILED U/S 143(2) OF THE CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.M. Sharath Kumar, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Magistrate.
3. Respondent-complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, contending inter alia that he had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused. Complainant was examined and cross-examined. On 21.08.2013, accused moved an application under Section 243(3) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 6 of Banker’s Book of Evidence Act, with a prayer to summon complainant’s banker to produce Bank Account Ledger extract for the year 2006 and 2012. Learned Magistrate has recorded in the order that the accused has not stated the purpose of summoning the Bank Account Ledger extract. He has further recorded that PW.1 has not deposed that he has withdrawn the amount from the bank and paid the same to accused. On the other hand, PW.1 has deposed that he had kept the said amount in his house. Therefore, summoning of Bank Account Ledger extract is unnecessary. On these grounds, the said application has been rejected.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in order to prove that complainant did not have so much source of income at the material point of time to pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused, it is necessary to direct complainant’s banker to produce the documents.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
7. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the complainant to the application, the portion of cross-examination of PW.1 has been extracted. A careful reading of the same shows that PW.1 has categorically stated that he had kept a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in his house. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV